Ravi Varshney - v. -, 2013 SKPC 159

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2013 SKPC 159 Date: October 3, 2013 File: 187/2013 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Ravi Varshney - and - Kelray Automotive Inc. Self-Represented For the Plaintiff Kelly Glow For the Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT R. GREEN , J _____________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr.

Varshney claims that the defendant, Kelray Automotive Inc., misdiagnosed the problem with his vehicle, and that, as a result, he spent money repairing his vehicle that he did not need to. He also claims that the defendant did not return his used alternator, that was replaced, as agreed.

II. BACKGROUND [ 2 ] Mr. Varshney took his 2005 Mercedes SL500 to Kelray Automotive in November of 2011, to have work done on it. This work included an SGI safety inspection on November 1 and further work done on or around November 14, in response to Mr. Varshney’s concern that his battery light was on. On the latter date, Kelly Glow of Kelray Automotive, after testing the charging system, charged a battery in the vehicle and then retested the charging system.

He found the alternator was only charging to 13.02 volts, considerably lower than the level of 14 to 14.5 volts that he thought the alternator should be charging at. [ 3 ] Mr. Glow advised Mr. Varshney that he needed a new alternator. Mr. Varshney agreed and a time was arranged to install the new alternator. In his e-mail to Mr. Glow, in which he agreed to this work, Mr.

Varshney as well said: “I’ll get the broken alternator fixed and keep it anyways, just in case I ever need it again” (Exhibit P-1). [ 4 ] The alternator was replaced, for a total charge, including the inspection about the battery light concern, of $857.90 (Exhibit P-6). The old alternator was not returned to Mr. Varshney, as Mr. Glow said he believed he was required to return it to his parts supplier. In fact, he admitted at the trial that he was wrong on this point, and that he could have returned it to Mr. Varshney if Mr.

Varshney paid a small amount for the core value of the alternator. [ 5 ] In the weeks that followed the installation of the new alternator, Mr. Varshney saw his battery light come on again. He contacted Mr. Glow, and then there were a series of angry exchanges between them, by telephone and by e-mail. On January 24, 2012, Mr. Glow advised Mr.

Varshney, by e-mail (Exhibit P-3), that he could either: (1) bring his car back and have the alternator checked (as the alternator was on warranty) and, in addition, a mechanic could look for any other cause of the light coming on; or (2) take his vehicle to another garage such as Mercedes Benz. [ 6 ] It is obvious that the lines of communication between the plaintiff and the defendant broke down after this message. Mr.

Varshney subsequently took his vehicle to the Mercedes Benz dealer in Saskatoon, who eventually diagnosed the reason for the light coming on to be because one of the two batteries in the vehicle was dead. This, however, happened a significant period of time after Kelray Automotive installed the new alternator:

(1) On September 20, 2012, Mr. Varshney took his vehicle to Mercedes Benz to have it assessed. On that date, the invoice indicates that one of the batteries tested to be low, was charged, and was fine the next morning (Exhibit P-4).

(2) On April 19, 2013 - some 17 months after the diagnosis by Mr. Glow at Kelray Automotive - Mercedes Benz found that one of the two batteries was dead. That battery was replaced at a cost of $583.55 (Exhibit P-5). [ 7 ] Mr. Varshney claims for the money he paid to Kelray Automotive ($857.90) as a result of: (1) the defendant misdiagnosing the problem with his vehicle (which he maintains was the battery all along) and/or (2) the defendant not installing the new and warrantied alternator that Mr. Varshney was charged for.

He also claims for the cost of the initial inspection at Mercedes Benz ($343.40) and the cost of the new battery installed by Mercedes Benz ($583.55). He as well states that the initial agreement was for him to receive his used alternator back from Kelray Automotive, and this did not happen. [ 8 ] Mr. Glow responded that he personally tested Mr. Varshney’s alternator, and, in finding that it charged at 13.02 volts, followed a procedure he had learned, and used a manual he had obtained, from the automobile mechanics course he took at the Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology.

He denied any misdiagnosis or dishonesty in his dealing with Mr. Varshney, and said that he had proposed a number of options to Mr. Varshney to address his concerns. Mr. Glow, as well, submitted two invoices, which showed the purchase of the alternator which was installed into Mr. Varshney’s vehicle (Exhibits D-6 and D-7).

III. ANALYSIS (

a) The actions of Mr. Glow regarding the new alternator [9] Having viewed Exhibits D-6 and D-7, and having considered Mr. Glow’s evidence, I am satisfied that he installed a newand warrantied alternator in Mr. Varshney’s vehicle. But was Mr. Glow negligent in advising Mr. Varshney that a new alternator wasneeded? Put another way, did he breach the standard of care on him? [10] The appropriate standard of care for a mechanic is to use all reasonable care consistent with: (1) his particular knowledge; and (2) the care a reasonable person in the same position would exercise.[1] I accept Mr.

Glow’s evidence about his training and thebasis upon which he determined that Mr. Varshney’s alternator needed to be replaced. The fact that the battery light came on again afterthe alternator was replaced or that some 17 months later Mercedes Benz replaced one of the batteries in this vehicle does not in my viewprove carelessness on Mr. Glow’s part. As a result, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Glow breached the standardof care on him. I find the defendant is not liable to Mr. Varshney in the tort of negligence. (

b) The money paid by Mr. Varshney to Mercedes Benz [11] As I am not satisfied that Mr. Glow was negligent in replacing this alternator, Mr. Varshney is not entitled to recover fromhim the money he subsequently paid to Mercedes Benz. (

c) Mr. Varshney’s used alternator [12] While I am not satisfied that Mr. Glow was negligent in diagnosing the problem with Mr. Varshney’s alternator, or inreplacing it, I am satisfied that the original agreement between the parties was that Mr. Varshney’s used alternator be returned to him. As this did not happen, Mr. Varshney is in my view entitled to be compensated for this. There was no direct evidence on the value of theused alternator, but the documents filed by Mr. Glow showed that the defendant paid $454.60 for the new alternator and then, after anapparent markup, charged Mr. Varshney $580.00 for it.

Using the new alternator as a guide, I view a fair value of the used alternator tobe $200.00. IV. CONCLUSION [13] As explained above, I am not satisfied that Mr. Glow, on behalf of the defendant, was negligent in replacing Mr. Varshney’salternator. As a result, Mr. Varshney’s claim related to the alleged negligence is dismissed. As noted, however, I am satisfied that thedefendant breached the agreement to return the used alternator to Mr.

Varshney, and he shall have judgment for $200.00, together withinterest on this amount under The Pre-judgment Interest Act from November 14, 2011 and the costs of commencing this action ($20.00). R. Green, J [1] Sharkey v. Canadian Tire Associate Store Ltd. (1990), (NS SC), 100 N.S.R. (2d) 243 (N.S. Co. Ct.).